Democrats In The Wilderness

But you can't win without money. Bernie Sanders gave it a shot, but it didn't happen. (And, yes, he was submarined by Dems, but he's not a Dem. He's an independent.) You can't reform anything, let alone your own party, without money. That means having to go out and do these fundraisers with the people who have the most money to give. We don't live in a democracy. We live in a plutocracy, and if you want to change things, you need to go to the people who have the money. It's why the ACA is the ACA and not single payer: Because the insurance lobby and insurance companies would've stopped giving money to the Dems. He went to his next best option which was to get everybody health care through insurance companies. Obama sold it to the insurance companies as a good thing. All of that was predicated by money in the political system. I'm all for getting money out of the political system, but it's not happening. Not until there's some kind of revolution or people wake up and stop voting for candidates who are bought and sold every day. The only wait to make change is to play the system, and sometimes that means doing 450 fundraisers a year.

 

Republicans do a good job of vilifying everyone who runs against them, and they'll continue doing it until it stops working. If priests were running against them for offices, they'd tie them to child molestation and make it seem like every priest is a kiddie fiddler.

 

It's funny that you're buying into EXACTLY what Republicans want you to buy into. You don't like Nancy Pelosi. You don't know why you do. You've just been told over and over again that she's shit. So many people are uninformed (and I'm not accusing you of being uniformed) about what she's actually done, but the TV and press have been telling them for years that she's shit. I've been following politics for years and I simply can't understand what she's done to garner so much hate. It's not like she murdered anybody.

 

I think Hillary could have had a better chance of winning if she talked policy more and about Trump less. It literally was "or Trump" and that just doesn't inspire undecideds. I truly believe that if she had stuck with policy and less "hot sauce" discussions, she could have won over enough

 

I don't know if you've noticed, but American politics is like the shallowest high school popularity contest. It isn't the after school debate club.

You can stick to your moral victories, or you can opt for real victories. Hillary Clinton was also stereotyped unfairly. As was John Kerry and Al Gore.

I'm not interested in fairness. You either find a way to break through the stereotype, or you don't. If you're at 28% approval, you should get out of the way and give someone else a chance.

 

Hillary would've won if she had just said repeatedly on these words: "I'm going to do everything in my power to bring your jobs back." With that, she would've won the midwest and we wouldn't have to deal with our current idiot.

 

Why would the Republicans want the Democrats to get rid of Nancy Pelosi, she's done nothing as leader besides losing the majority and not getting it back.

I don't know why the Democrats don't want to go in a different direction.

 

I want the Democrats to win. Not just the presidency. Every goddamn election, especially local elections. I believe Republican politicians are frauds of the highest order and are a disgrace to our nation. I'm not for moral victories, and I wish that Dems would stop politely fighting and burn the GOP down the same way they do to us. All I said was that I don't understand the vitriol for her specifically, especially from her own party. This is why Dems can't have nice things. Paul Ryan is a complete joke who is literally rooting for people to lose health benefits and nobody tries to undermine him. Why do we do this to ourselves?

 

But you're confusing her with the party itself. Let's be clear that the DNC has done nothing to help itself. Even if Pelosi is gone, the root problems still exist. Dems can't agree on a platform. It's always trying to please everyone from both sides, and some people you just aren't going to win over. Republicans have a platform: It's Jesus and business. What is the Democratic platform? What unites the entirety of the party? I know what unites the Republicans, but what unites us? Throwing Pelosi overboard does not fix any of these problems.

 

Just give it time. There's people that have their pitchforks out for Paul Ryan. Don't forget John Boehner and Eric Cantor ...

As for why Dems criticize each other? I don't know. Maybe it's just a constituency that is less faith based and inherently more skeptical.

 

That's what Trump promised. In fact, he promised more - he said the jobs would come back. He also promised far better health care than Obamacare, and end to terrorism, world respect, and the return of the American Dream. You can't compete with Trump that way. First because he's better at it than almost anyone.

Second, it would be a lie. A president that wins by promising things they know they can't deliver wins a pyrrhic victory.

 

It's perhaps a bit fatalistic, but let the GOP have their way on everything (except for SCOTUS). They will have to own it all in 2018 and 2020. The more uncomfortable things get for their base (and "undecideds") the better chance for things to swing back our way?

 

But what I said, specifically, is not a lie. "I'm going to do everything in my power to bring back your jobs." If the jobs didn't come back, it's not like she wouldn't have tried. "I have been trying to bring you jobs, but I keep getting stonewalled by Republicans. If Republicans would get out of the way, I could do more," is what Republicans say to win. Last I looked, they appear to be winning, and winning bigly. I want to win. There are no moral victories.

 

When have Republicans ever had to own anything? Republicans during the second Bush era weren't forced to own anything, and they nearly allowed the economy to collapse. The GOP will get their way on everything because they have unchecked power right now. Hell, if they really wanted to they could gerrymander everything so that they never lose power ever again. Republicans vote. Democrats don't. Look at Republican numbers. They haven't changed in the last 10 years. Their voting base is stagnant. It's Dems who never capitalize on this, and they one time they did, where they had a solid majority, they spent that time fighting amongst themselves.

 

But Hillary knows, like most educated people, that jobs will never come back to the rural areas. There is an irreversible trend towards cities. She did promise things like job training and certain policies to stem this flow in certain areas, but obviously that isn't a winning strategy.

There are no permanent victories in politics. It doesn't matter how well one party does - after a while people just want to switch. At best a Hillary win would have delayed this one term. Without a congress, you can't do the things you promised.

 

I buy into this theory somewhat. We need to obstruct them, but when appropriate, also give them enough rope so they hang themselves. Being out of power is good because you don't have to own anything.

Eventually the voters did penalize Bush in 2006. If anything it was Democrats who let them off the hook. They had the House from 2006-08 and they could have hit the administration hard with Iraq war investigations. Not saying they should have done it, but the opportunity was there ... As for the 2008 financial collapse, Obama did have all the bank CEOs in that famous 2009 meeting in Washington when they were at their most vulnerable. Instead of reading them the riot act, he gave them a pep talk. Again ... not saying that was necessarily the wrong decision, but the opportunity was there.[

 

http://www.freep.com/story/news/pol...d-michigan-try-and-reverse-gop-vote/99550420/

So Tom Perez and Keith Ellison are starting their first assignment by visiting Michigan. Specifically Warren, Michigan which is an industrial hub with 28,000 jobs between GM, Chrysler and TACOM. This is the prototype Democratic area that voted for Trump. This is Sander Levin's district and he won by 21%, so this isn't necessarily about protecting him. But I like the fact that their first order of business is to go where the party is most wounded. Their first official event was today at a union hall breakfast in Warren.

Next stops were a community center in Flint and a town hall in Detroit. Next states on the agenda are Texas, New Jersey and Virginia.

 

Berniebros can't afford to live in SF anymore.

 

If only you could have gotten those Bernie Bros to vote for your lizard queen....

You didn't need them then did you?

Oh well, life goes on. YOU have to live with it, Im in Germany for now.

 

Yeah, if they weren't such selfish douchebags and just held their noses and voted for the "lizard queen" instead of sitting it out or voting for a candidate with no chance to win we'd be in much better shape right now.

And I say this as somebody who voted for Sanders in the primary.

 

Fine, but this Bernie Bros schtick isn't helping anything, isn't BRINGING in these voters kind of the objective for the next election cycle?

As far as I go, I'm unaffiliated and am voting for individuals, not party in the future, "blue no matter who" isn't good enough anymore. Make me want to come back, have a reason not just "or that guy"

 

The Democrats could nominate John Boehner and they would get my vote against "that guy."